The Election

After the most contentious presidential election in history, the new Republican president, considered by the intellectual elite to be an unsophisticated, backwoods fool, suddenly faced an attack upon the nation and its people. He would soon announce, that in response, to preserve the nation and its freedoms, he would unleash the full power of the United States military upon those who would seek to destroy the country. Noting that this war would be unlike any other war ever seen in American history and could last many years, the president asked for the people's support and prayers. He spoke with a firm resolve about his faith in God, the American people, and our system of free government, which enraged his critics.

Despite a Republican majority in both houses of congress, he did not always have their full support. In fact, several Republicans, privately thinking they could do a better job, openly joined in the questioning of the president and his policies. When he took military action to defend the country, Democrats screamed that the he had rushed to war, overstating the threat to the nation. When certain European countries complained of his high handedness, Democrats insisted he solicit their support for his actions.

Democrats accused the president of using the nation's crisis, as a tool to advance his own radical political agenda. When he went to visit our troops, they scorned his actions as political grandstanding. When he sought the imprisonment of those who had conspired to attack our country, Democrats argued he was abandoning civil rights and violating the very spirit of the constitution.

During the war, as deathcounts rose, Democrats claimed the blood was on the president's hands, and that his war was both unnecessary and unjustified. They even insinuated, without any basis in fact, that his policies were the root cause of the war in the first place.

When it came time for a new presidential election, the Democrats nominated a former war hero, well known for his staunch and unrelenting criticism of the current administration, hyping his war record, and questioning that of the president's. Despite being a nation at war, Democrats would challenge his handling of the war, and contest his management of the country's domestic affairs, fiscal policy and the historically high deficit. Re-election was seriously in doubt.

But one should never underestimate the intelligence of the American people. For they can see greatness even when sought to be masked by the rants of partisans. With such foresight, the American people did re-elect the president, and in so doing, saved America.

I remember Abe ! let me tell you brother George is no Abe. not even close with his strings being pulled by the evil -Dick the Cheney. Still getting paid from Haliburton!

Click to expand...

A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq.* The fact is, Cheney*doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and*almost certainly won't*lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton*"as vice president," which is false. Actually,*nearly $1.6 million of that was paid*before*Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.

A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq.* The fact is, Cheney*doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and*almost certainly won't*lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton*"as vice president," which is false. Actually,*nearly $1.6 million of that was paid*before*Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.

Maybe he doesnt get a penny from the contracts but he was getting paid in 2001,2002...from haliburtion. in otherwords he is still getting a check. With all the garbage coming out of the past 4 years from this administration who care's much if Cheney gets hundreds of thousands per year from Haliburton while vice president. over 200,000 in 2001 over 160,000 in 2002.

Lets just say as a long time republican supporter i find myself with nothing to support.

dusingaz - I have some questions for you, and I am asking them in true sincereity.

Do you think our president made he correct choice in going into Iraq (NOT Afghanistan)? Do you think it has made this country safer? Is the war in Iraq aligned with the war on terror?

I want you to know, I'm not flame baiting you at all, I just want to try to understand the other side. I am honestly Pro Kerry, anti-Iraq-war, all that.

I am just really, really curious. I live in Lousiana, which is massively unfliching in its support for all things GWB. Am I often branded a traitor, communist, socialist, athiest, yada, yada, yada. Hopefully you can let me know what you think without resorting to anything like that.

Maybe he doesnt get a penny from the contracts but he was getting paid in 2001,2002...from haliburtion. in otherwords he is still getting a check. With all the garbage coming out of the past 4 years from this administration who care's much if Cheney gets hundreds of thousands per year from Haliburton while vice president. over 200,000 in 2001 over 160,000 in 2002.

Lets just say as a long time republican supporter i find myself with nothing to support.

Click to expand...

really you'll have to read the linked article. Fact Check.org at least says that the money he was paid, that you speak of, was deferred salary. Meaning he requested to have his salary spread out over time when he used to work at Hal. I don't think there is any thing wrong with being paid for work you did. He couldn't stop Hal from paying him if he wanted to, that was the payment plan he signed up on.

I think there are many valid reasons to be disappointed in the Admin, but I don't think this is one.

dusingaz - I have some questions for you, and I am asking them in true sincereity.

Do you think our president made he correct choice in going into Iraq (NOT Afghanistan)? Do you think it has made this country safer? Is the war in Iraq aligned with the war on terror?

I want you to know, I'm not flame baiting you at all, I just want to try to understand the other side. I am honestly Pro Kerry, anti-Iraq-war, all that.

I am just really, really curious. I live in Lousiana, which is massively unfliching in its support for all things GWB. Am I often branded a traitor, communist, socialist, athiest, yada, yada, yada. Hopefully you can let me know what you think without resorting to anything like that.

Feel free to email me if you don't want to say here.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the fair questions. And of course my response is only opinion.

I believe it was the correct decision to go to war in Iraq (at the time), I think the president was acting in good faith when he chose to do so. Now we know a lot more about what Iraq had, and didn't have. That makes it much more complicated. But at the time, world intel agencies said he had them, in fact the latest WMD report says that each of the Iraq generals thought the other ones had it. I wouldn't be surprised if Sadam thought he had nukes, his people were in such fear they probably lied to him to keep their jobs/lives.

Is the US safer?
Hard to say, I think we are not safer over all, but I see that as a momentary thing, I think by actively confronting terrorism and its supporters you defiantly going to piss some people off, and even encourage them to kill you faster. But eventually if we stick at it the tide will turn and slowly we will win, and they will dwindle in power. I think we expect to be safe from terror overnight, I don't think that is fair, all we can do is all we can do.

Some would say IRAQ is not the biggest threat, ie North Korea, and Iran. I agree and I think this is even more reason to take on Sadam. Follow me ;-). So North Korea and Iran have nukes, and they deserve to be stopped, they are the number 1 and 2 biggest threats to the world. But **** they've got nukes, and large armies. I don't think we need to be threatening them, specially North Korea. But we can threaten them in a round about way, and that is IRAQ. IRAQ is a doable target, it may seem harder on the news but it is 5,000% easier of a regime to crumble then North Korea. So by attacking Sadam and freeing the Iraqi people we have sent a message that we are serious about this terror thing. The success of that can be seen with Libya. I for one never want to see a war with North Korea, and I hope that by getting tough and showing that our words do mean something, it will allow talks with North Korea to produce some real progress. I'm not saying they are afraid of us, but at least we have something to bring to the table now. in a real round about, but I believe deliberate way. I think all of this was done in good faith even though it may not have turned out as easy as the admin though, I think they figured at the very least they would be liberating millions of Iraqis and that would help justify the war. I for one think that is a great thing, and worth our money and our soldiers lives. I think everyone deserves freedom. I also believe that this chunk of freedom in the mideast will leak into other countries. I know some say, its not real freedom, and your right, its not the kind of freedom we have, but if you compare it is miles ahead of what they are used to.

Sure we could have done nothing with IRAQ and I bet they would have never attacked us, they might have helped terrorism some more, they might not have. But Sadam didn't deserve that country, and the Iraqi people deserve more then Sadam. Thats a good enough start for me.

I know these are not exactly what the administration sold the war on... and it bothers me that they didn't make a bigger deal about the humanitarian problems in IRAQ. They should not have pinned this whole thing on WMD, but i see the big picture strategy they are going for, and I happen to agree with it, and I think it will in the end (10yrs) be successful in "generally" ridding the world of terrorism as we know it, and thus making americans, and more importantly everyone else safer.

So, your solution to dealing with sticky world politics with regards to nuclear age countries whose views don't jive with that of the U.S., is to invade a significantly weaker country as a show of our power? Don't mess with the U.S., or we just might invade Venezuela, and that'll show ya?

I believe it was the correct decision to go to war in Iraq (at the time), I think the president was acting in good faith when he chose to do so. Now we know a lot more about what Iraq had, and didn't have. That makes it much more complicated. But at the time, world intel agencies said he had them, in fact the latest WMD report says that each of the Iraq generals thought the other ones had it. I wouldn't be surprised if Sadam thought he had nukes, his people were in such fear they probably lied to him to keep their jobs/lives.

Click to expand...

If you remember, the UN had a huge team of weapons inspectors in Iraq at the time war was announced. They requested more time to finish their work, a few months at most. The vast majority of world leaders backed this request. If this had happened we would have known with a great deal of certainty that neither WMD or WMD programs existed, as Iraq had claimed consistently all along. If further doubt existed then a continuous inspections program could have been put in place.

Instead, the US (and a handful of the coerced) invaded, killing thousands on Iraqi civilians and destroying the world order as it had been known and understood.

I think this will go down in history as one of the biggest errors of judgment of foreign policy buy a US president (not to mention our own Blair).

What has happened so far is tragic. Whether it pays off in furthering "democracy" in the middle-east, who knows. It's a gamble. Are you feeling lucky?

So, your solution to dealing with sticky world politics with regards to nuclear age countries whose views don't jive with that of the U.S., is to invade a significantly weaker country as a show of our power? Don't mess with the U.S., or we just might invade Venezuela, and that'll show ya?

In hoc,
What a joke.

Click to expand...

Liberate a country from a terror connected world threatening regime, yes.
Iraq is no Venezuela, Iraq is just the 3rd on the rung of countries that have to change.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.